ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a convenient imaging modality in the setting of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) because it is easily available, can be performed bedside and repeated over time. We herein examined LUS patterns in relation to disease severity and disease stage among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case series analysis of patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted to the hospital because of pneumonia. We recorded history, clinical parameters and medications. LUS was performed and scored in a standardized fashion by experienced operators, with evaluation of up to 12 lung fields, reporting especially on B-lines and consolidations. RESULTS: We included 96 patients, 58.3% men, with a mean age of 65.9 years. Patients with a high-risk quick COVID-19 severity index (qCSI) were older and had worse outcomes, especially for the need for high-flow oxygen. B-lines and consolidations were located mainly in the lower posterior lung fields. LUS patterns for B-lines and consolidations were significantly worse in all lung fields among patients with high versus low qCSI. B-lines and consolidations were worse in the intermediate disease stage, from day 7 to 13 after onset of symptoms. While consolidations correlated more with inflammatory biomarkers, B-lines correlated more with end-organ damage, including extrapulmonary involvement. CONCLUSIONS: LUS patterns provide a comprehensive evaluation of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia that correlated with severity and dynamically reflect disease stage. LUS patterns may reflect different pathophysiological processes related to inflammation or tissue damage; consolidations may represent a more specific sign of localized disease, whereas B-lines seem to be also dependent upon generalized illness due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear-explosive (CBRNe) are complex events. Decontamination is mandatory to avoid harm and contain hazardous materials, but can delay care. Therefore, the stabilization of patients in the warm zone seems reasonable, but research is limited. Moreover, subjects involved in biological events are considered infectious even after decontamination and need to be managed while wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), as seen with Ebola and COVID-19 pandemic. With this simulation mannequin trial, we assessed the impact of CBRNe PPE on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and combat casualty care procedures. METHODS: We compared procedures performed by emergency medicine and anesthesiology senior residents, randomized in 2 groups (CBRNe PPE vs. no PPE). Chest compression (CC) depth was defined as the primary outcome. Time to completion was calculated for the following: tourniquet application; tension pneumothorax needle decompression; peripheral venous access (PVA) and intraosseous access positioning; and drug preparation and administration. A questionnaire was delivered to evaluate participants' perception. RESULTS: Thirty-six residents participated. No significant difference between the groups in CC depth (mean difference = 0.26 cm [95% confidence interval = -0.26 to 0.77 cm, P = 0.318]), as well as for CC rate, CC complete release, and time for drugs preparation and administration was detected. The PPE contributed to significantly higher times for tourniquet application, tension pneumothorax decompression, peripheral venous access, and intraosseous access positioning. The residents found simulation relevant to the residencies' core curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that cardiopulmonary resuscitation can be performed while wearing PPE without impacting quality, whereas other tasks requiring higher dexterity can be significantly impaired by PPE.Trial Registration Number: NCT04367454, April 29, 2020 (retrospectively registered).